Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Mabraman, no apology necessary! I'm sorry for the people that have to deal with drunk loutish English people abroad. They are a small minority but in parts of Spain it would be difficult to believe that they are a minority I would imagine.

I was referring more to his examination of 'socialism' in Holland and the US, rather than the 'whinging Brits' post (which I somehow missed first time around).

However, while I am not terribly keen on theJourney's somewhat condescending posting style, I do believe he raises some very interesting points.

The suggestion that Obama is more conservative than Nixon sounds ridiculous initially. However, when you consider some of the policies that his administration have enacted (or maintained), while also taking into account that of Nixon's the argument suddenly becomes rather more valid.

Yes, fair point. Someone else (was it gv?) said earlier that you can't impose understanding of one nation's politics onto another. The reality in the US when you have two houses, each with different political majorities and each with the ability to delay or frustrate the President's plans makes it difficult to draw parallels.

Another example would be foreign observers of business in the House of Commons with all the shouting and paper waving and apparent lack of respect. It would seem to be a circus but there is a kind of point to it....

Our common hobbies or sometimes even destiny - music, instruments, interests in cultural history, in technology and yes even industry and global market - should teach us: there are more common in us throughout country boarders and continents than what separates us by our nationality or political views.

Similarly: no social class was prone of male chauvinism - but even the most ardent male chauvinist aristocrats in every society in history wouldn't deny that women in their own social class had much more in common with themselves than males in other classes.

This could settle some issues here.

There are issues which are just too complex to understand without a higher economical studium. Such a question is e.g. which country pulls more benefits out of the EU or from the Euro. Germany is a netto nominal contibutor, but generally regarded as a winner by their membership (EU and Euro zone). Had they the Deutsche Mark, it's value would be 2 EUR by now (at the beginning 1 EUR=2DM) and the German economy wouldn't suffer competetive pressure. (But how popular it would be.) Just the opposite is happening in the Meditterranain countries, they economies were in balance up to now, without todays crisis, could they have devaluated their currencies.

Justa classical other example: if You let people work longer, are than the older employees taking simply jobs from the young, or helping to generate new jobs? (Or with immigrants).

If You take democracy itself, it is perhaps the holy grail but not holy at all. Opinions for even basic questions and individual voter's decision are based on oversimplified lay answers - is that not what lastly all political elections and decisions governs?

Political scenery with much media hype and other political marketing is just what is before the curtain, what counts is the backstage. I couldn't imagine that they would ever succeed with such an unpopular Euro launch project (in almost all participating countries) ever would take place - but it was decided and pushed through and was running astonishingly smooth - until the last big economical crisis.

Our opinion is governed by the media, if You are in a specific country, than complete other issues are drawing your affinity and let you polarize your views.

I am better off, when I focus on my music and other deeper interests where I have the power of acting. Political issues deserve my activities only when I have the chance to participate in politics full time in a role of a real player. (Like in soccer: few player, many fans but who have much illusion about their importance.)

For example, the suggestion that Obama is more conservative than Nixon sounds ridiculous initially. However, when you consider some of the policies that his administration have enacted (or maintained), while also taking into account that of Nixon's, the argument suddenly becomes rather more valid.

No, actually it doesn't. Nixon started with the situation as he had it at the time, which was very different than ours. If he made some decisions during his years that pushed the country to the left (among the many that he made the pushed it to the right), that can't easily be compared with today's situation because when he left office the country was far right of where it is today. We've had many liberal politicians push the country left since then, far beyond the US Nixon saw.

The question is this: if Nixon were president today would he be making as liberal (as we understand it today) decisions as Obama is? No, he would not. If Obama had been president back in Nixon's day, would he have made those same liberal decisions? Yes, and many more.

By the way, it's pretty much invalid to make comparisons across long periods of time, just as it is to make them across countries. The definition of liberal and conservative is by no means stable. It used to be that the south was the heart of the Democratic party. Then there was a long period of time when the east was liberal and the west was conservative (with California the conservative powerhouse). Today the coasts (at least, the urban areas) are liberal and the heartland is conservative. The people haven't changed all that much. The issues have. And those issues differ from those in Europe and other areas by so much that there is little point in using the same words to describe political leanings on two sides of the pond.

It is a well-accepted fact that almost all media in the US are left of the mean. That can be verified by the fact that reporters, journalists, and editors are almost 100% democrat, which is our left-wing party.

How employees vote doesn't necessarily define how the institution that pays their checks leans politically. The media is as liberal as the multi-national corporations who own them, which is to say, very little. One of my right wing friends (PHD in politics and very active statistical researcher) explained this to me years ago.

Re: Dewster's comments about corporations setting the political tone of the news.

I guess I don't agree. Despite the vilification they receive, corporations are about maximizing profit, not pushing ideals, and that becomes more true the larger they are (which tends to lead to less concentration of ownership). On the other hand if you ask a reporter or editor why they went into their field there is a very good chance that they will respond that they wanted to "make a difference." Aggregated across the thousands of people working in that field, it's an all but unstoppable force.

Further, it's quite the myth that leaders of corporations tend to be on the far right politically. There's a wide dispersion, with many of the biggest companies in America (including those that own news outlets) being led by very liberal people.

It's a valid argument, though, so let's accept that liberal reporters and editors doesn't necessarily lead to liberal news (I still believe it does, in practice, obviously).

Perhaps the way to think about it, then, is to compare people's opinions of the media. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a conservative who did not agree that essentially all media is left of median. On the other side of the spectrum typical left-leaning people that I know (I am in a relatively liberal location and sphere) consider most news more-or-less fair and balanced (excluding fox). It's rare to find a liberal complaining about any news outlet besides fox.

(Btw I don't believe fox is particularly trying to push an ideal either--there's not a lot of money in ideals. They have just realized that everyone likes to hear news that validates their preconceived opinions and 50% of the country doesn't get that from other stations. So they are more actively fighting the natural tendency of their reporters in an effort to maximize profit.)

If we assume that the media is centered in the political spectrum, one is hard pressed to explain why half the country feels that the media is biased and the other half generally doesn't. Mass delusion doesn't count as a valid explanation, by the way. It's not true that there's a disparity in education, rationality, or intelligence between the sides of the political spectrum. Anything contrary to that is just rhetoric used by radicals on both sides to disparage the other.

From discussing a WSJ article about the N2, to discussing whether the article was biased (marketing for Yamaha), to discussing media bias in general, to discussing politics in general. I like it.

This thread could very well have degenerated into a Yamaha-Kawai-Roland-Casio flame war. But it didn't. I guess it's because we all agree that we know a few things about pianos and music, and therefore concede that what some people like in keyboards, others don't.But for some reason, some of us claim to have the answers on political questions. And I'm guessing most of us don't know more about politics or economy than about music. So we offer our opinions.

And with all this discussion, I don't even know if the WSJ is left-wing or right-wing. If it was one or the other, would this make Yamaha tend left or right as well?

And with all this discussion, I don't even know if the WSJ is left-wing or right-wing. If it was one or the other, would this make Yamaha tend left or right as well?

Lol. Well, Yamaha is a corporation, so I suspect a true socialist would define it as being on the side of evil (whichever side that is). Whether the guys in Japan consider themselves right or left is beyond me. I have no idea what politics are like there.

It's much, much, more sinister than that...not only are they a corporation theyare a ..... GASP!!!!... conglomarate!!!!!

Well, nobody of my young collegues, many of them techno freaks, did know, that the logo of their motocycle consists of 3 .... tuningforks!

As I bought a new DP, next day morning I told them: I have bought a YAMAHA !!! (In reality it was a Kawai, but I rather needed this name to be manipulative - as this topic is mostly about. And we know it now, Yamaha = DP anyway)

Rather than passively whinging about how undemocratic your EU government is, why not become responsible and accountable and start actually taking personal action to make it better?

Could You give some examples for possible effective personal actions to be taken to make it better, beside voting or posting here and on other fora?

Good question. Seeing as the EU institutions are completely undemocratic and disinterested in the needs of individuals within nation states. Their political agenda has nothing to do with my needs and aspirations and they are so remote from me I have no way of making my voice heard. So what's the point of doing anything? The European situation is one part of the reason people have become alienated by politics. People are apathetic and don't get involved like they used to because they just don't believe their views count anymore. No one is listening. No one in Europe cares just so long as we (the British) keep on pumping in billions and billions each year.

For the record I have no problem with cooperation and common markets and useful, friendly relationships between nations. But I don't want to be a citizen of "Europe". By Europe I mean a single political entity with law-making powers that take precedence over national sovereignty. Because certainly with the current structures it is essentially undemocratic. Unelected bureaucrats making decisions with wide-ranging effects on millions of individuals and those decision-makers are totally unaccountable. It's not right.

Millions of people lost their lives fighting for freedom and basic democratic rights - for themselves and on behalf of others. And now like lemmings we have apparently happily surrendered those hard-won rights and freedoms. And let's face facts - without the British and Americans (and others) continental Europe would have succumbed permanently to a tyrannical, cruel and genocidal dark age. So theJourney can look down his nose at whinging Brits and Americans all he likes but he owes his freedom to them both. Yes, that may be 70 years ago but history is there to teach us...

As long as we're talking Europe, I remember an article in Time magazine many, many years ago where someone started with say 1500 British pounds, travelled all through Europe exchanging currencies though 10 or so countries, and at the end of trip had not spent one cent and had very little money left over.

I for one when on vacation in Europe enjoy using a single currency. I like that member states have the same rules and regulations. I like that truck drivers from Poland have to sleep x number of hours per day, the same number of hours imposed on Dutch drivers.

The list goes on and on. It's not a perfect union but it's a civilized and intelligent start.

As I bought a new DP, next day morning I told them: I have bought a YAMAHA !!! (In reality it was a Kawai, but I rather needed this name to be manipulative - as this topic is mostly about. And we know it now, Yamaha = DP anyway)

The first questions were: What PS? How much cubic centimeter?

Reminds me of last year, when I bought my Yamaha C2. I bought it on March 31st in Sindelfingen, which is also the headquarter of Mercedes-Benz. And Mercedes also has a C-class in their product range.So the next day I called my parents and said: "I went to Sindelfingen and bought a C class. April's Fool or not?"

I don't even own a car, and if I bought one, it would most likely not be a Mercedes.

Millions of people lost their lives fighting for freedom and basic democratic rights - for themselves and on behalf of others. And now like lemmings we have apparently happily surrendered those hard-won rights and freedoms. And let's face facts - without the British and Americans (and others) continental Europe would have succumbed permanently to a tyrannical, cruel and genocidal dark age. So theJourney can look down his nose at whinging Brits and Americans all he likes but he owes his freedom to them both. Yes, that may be 70 years ago but history is there to teach us...

But not in Eastern Europe - here owed people their previous freedom to the Sowiets then? Or the Allies who trusted Stalin (but Churchill)? But seriously: between the 2 WWs there were just 2 decades. Since then 70 years. It all is history. Not much different than the influence of historical events in the past in centuries ago and in distant countries.Otherwise You are right:

Quote

people have become alienated by politics. People are apathetic and don't get involved like they used to because they just don't believe their views count anymore. No one is listening.

But this has another simple reason: You have a King/Queen. US have a President. But the EU has a Comittee. A complex distant structure, with very weak personal incarnation of power. Very abstract, distant thing, not suitable to integrate, to mobilize our atavistic evolutionary mind to participate, to trust or to criticize or to elect in person. Abstract structures of power are always suspect for the folk and target of conspiracy theories. And the real benefits, obvious all-time conveniences of the EU which Dave correctly describes, wan't be attributed to the instances forged them or to distant countries paying for them. Nobody is aware of or grateful for contributions of people in other countries in my experience. But what I described is a common communication problem.